Framing Dr. Fauci: The Portrayal of Dr. Anthony Fauci by Fox News and CNN in the Early COVID-19 Lockdown

Western Washington University Western Washington University

Western CEDAR Western CEDAR

WWU Honors College Senior Projects WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship

Spring 2023

Framing Dr. Fauci: The Portrayal of Dr. Anthony Fauci by Fox News Framing Dr. Fauci: The Portrayal of Dr. Anthony Fauci by Fox News

and CNN in the Early COVID-19 Lockdown and CNN in the Early COVID-19 Lockdown

Lilian Froese Raihl

Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors

Part of the Journalism Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Froese Raihl, Lilian, "Framing Dr. Fauci: The Portrayal of Dr. Anthony Fauci by Fox News and CNN in the

Early COVID-19 Lockdown" (2023).

WWU Honors College Senior Projects

. 726.

https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors/726

This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at

Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Honors College Senior Projects by an authorized

administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Framing Dr. Fauci:

The Portrayal of Dr. Anthony Fauci by Fox News and CNN

in the Early COVID-19 Lockdown

Lily Froese Raihl

Western Washington University

HNRS 350: Portrayal of Science and the Scientist in Popular Culture

Sheila Webb

Spring Quarter 2023

Introduction

COVID-19 caused the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that

emerged in December 2019 (Center for Disease Control, 2022). When COVID-19 became

prevalent in early 2020 in the United States, the media played a large role in communication

about the pandemic, whether it was transmitting updates about the spread of the virus, posting

alerts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or sharing medical research

on COVID-19 (Grasso, 2021). As the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious

Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci became a leading figure in informing the public about the virus. He

was featured regularly on news sites, where many looked to him for updates and solutions.

However, media politization of COVID-19 became more apparent as American citizens

disagreed on restrictions and opinions were split along partisan lines (Hart, Chinn, & Soroka,

2020). Media portrayals can influence people’s opinions (Dunwoody & Kohl, 2017), and during

the initial period of high uncertainty following the first COVID-19 cases, a negative portrayal of

Dr. Fauci’s messaging could sow doubt in him and have grave health consequences whereas a

positive portrayal might indicate an enhanced understanding of the issues. This study looks at the

framing of Dr. Fauci by Fox News and CNN during the first lockdown and shows how two

popular mass media outlets at opposite poles of the political spectrum portrayed science and

experts during the pandemic. Results revealed a very clear and polar opposite portrayal of both

Dr. Fauci and COVID-19 by these two media outlets, indicating a necessity for further

examination of partisan-driven coverage of scientific uncertainty and its influence on public

attitudes and opinions.

Literature Review

Background on COVID-19

In December of 2019, a doctor in Wuhan noticed a group of patients exhibiting Severe

Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) -like symptoms and reported the information to the local

World Health Organization (WHO). Scientists worked quickly to identify and publish the

genome and on January 30, 2020, the outbreak was declared a public health emergency. The first

case of local person-to-person spread was reported in mid-February 2020 in Wuhan, after which

the crisis developed rapidly worldwide. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a

pandemic.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic was the largest pandemic the world had experienced,

it was not the first zoonosis from wildlife to impact human population. SARS is a virus that

predominantly affects people who work closely with infected animals and health care workers.

Although COVID-19 shares almost 80% of genetic sequences with a SARS outbreak in 2002, it

had more widespread impact because COVID 19 spreads very quickly from person-person

contact, a problem that was largely caused by asymptomatic carriers (Lango, 2021). Despite it

being less virulent than SARS, this easy transmission of COVID-19 resulted in much greater

health and social consequences. The COVID-19 virus infected over 33 million people in the

United States from 2020 to 2021 (Irons & Raftery, 2021). Its impacts were far reaching, posing a

threat to people’s social lives as well as to their physical health. Quarantine restrictions trapped

many in their homes and prevented large gatherings at places like school, church, and shopping

centers. Information-sharing moved online, including things like health appointments and classes

(Grasso, 2021).

Scientific Uncertainty and Portrayal of Scientists in Media

The presence of uncertainty is inevitable in science knowledge, and communication of

scientific uncertainty can have an impact on attitudes towards science and scientists. This

inherent uncertainty played a role in the coverage of COVID-19 because the CDC itself was

trying to figure out best practices. Media communicate scientific uncertainty using a number of

different strategies, some of them targeting the credibility of researchers by including

contradictory statements or epistemic arguments (Peters & Dunwoody, 2016). Gustafson and

Rice conducted a study on the effects of the communications of scientific uncertainty in 2020

and found that uncertainty characterized by controversy or disagreement among experts was

related to a decrease in the perceived credibility of the message. However, a strategy known as

“weight-of-experts,” has been found to combat uncertainty among contested topics by

highlighting the reliability of experts (Dunwoody & Kohl, 2017). This strategy involves

presenting readers with multiple existing truth claims and then following up with information

about where experts stand on the issues, steering readers towards valid conclusions. The weight-

of-experts strategy has been found to be effective in influencing attitudes and beliefs (Dunwoody

& Kohl, 2017). COVID-19 was a period of scientific uncertainty when many scientists were

uncertain of next steps. This study examines media coverage of Dr. Fauci during the early period

to see if either of these techniques was utilized (weight-of-experts, contradictory statements).

This research also provides a background for the reason behind media using these strategies and

their expected outcomes.

Frame Analysis

In 1993, Robert Entman described the creation of frames: “To frame is to select some

aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a

way as to promote a particular problem, definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation,

and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (52). Analysis of media framing can

provide insights into how transmission of information can guide opinion. During the pandemic,

news sources played an essential part in providing updates and health information. Frame

analysis allows us to examine by these sources portrayed science and health officials.

Studies of media coverage during health crises using frame analysis are instructive. Pan

and Meng (2009) used news frames to analyze coverage of the swine flu outbreak of 2009.

Through the lens of a crisis management approach, their goal was to look at how news media

function in the management of a pandemic. Pan and Meng identified the frames of health risk,

societal problems, political/legal issues, prevention/health education. The health risk frame

focused on transmission and prevalence of the epidemic, while the prevention/health frame was

leveraged in stories to educate the public and provide health warnings. Pan and Meng found that

the medical/scientific frame that highlights medical treatment and scientific research were

utilized after the outbreak (2009).

Bolsen, Palm, and Kingsland (2020) examined the impact of exposure to framed

messages about the origins of COVID-19. They tested two sets of opposite frames: whether the

disease was zoonotic or human engineered, and the impacts of origin beliefs on the desire to

either penalize China or support increased funding for research. They found the effects of one-

sided framing to be significant. When only one strong frame was presented, it was capable of

influencing individuals’ beliefs about the origins of COVID-19. However, when two strong

competing frames were present, they canceled each other out and reduced influence on people’s

beliefs about where the virus came from (Bolsen, et al., 2020). Their findings emphasize the

power of framing in a real-life context and the influence media can exert over people’s opinions.

Xu, Yu, and Löffelholz (2020) conducted a frame analysis of texts and visuals posted on Twitter

by two German newspapers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the frames included in

their study were: updated information, preventive information, medical research, social impacts,

economic impact, diplomatic context, and combating misinformation. Although my study

focused on textual frames and not visuals, I adopted several of their study’s frames.

Method

RQ1: How did Fox News and CNN frame COVID-19?

RQ2: How did Fox News and CNN characterize Dr. Fauci as a reliable or unreliable source?

This study examined a series of 75 randomly selected articles from Fox News from

March 11, 2020, to September 8, 2020, and 150 articles from CNN from the same time period.

These two media organizations were selected because they represent two opposite political poles

of the most popular media outlets in the US. Using the keywords “Dr. Fauci” and “Covid,” the

search revealed over 300 stories for Fox and 600 for CNN. I analyzed every fourth one for each.

Articles under the tabs of “politics,” “health,” and “media” were examined; the opinion and

sports categories were not included. The time period analyzed marked the beginning of the first

countrywide lockdown restrictions in the US to when COVID-19 cases began to decline for the

first time. I choose the March 11, 2020, lockdowns as the beginning of the timeline because they

had a widespread effect on the lives of US citizens. On September 8, 2020, the US had a break in

the increasing case numbers, signifying that the restriction efforts were having an effect. I

wanted to examine the transition from initial reactions to the urgency of the virus to the period

when US citizens had had time to adjust to the lockdown during a time of scientific uncertainty.

Coding of the data involved a pre-set list of media frames that were mostly derived from

the work of Xu, Yu, and Löffelholz, which consisted of: updated information, preventive

information, medical research, social impacts, economic impact, diplomatic context, and

combating misinformation. The political frame was added during the process of analysis to

answer the RQs more effectively. The six frames of this study are: update information,

preventative information, medical research, social impacts, combating misinformation, and

politics. I noted which frames appeared in each article examined, and articles containing multiple

same-category frames were double coded. For example, three appearances of political frames in

an article would be coded as one political frame. The frames are characterized below:

Frame

Definition

Update

information

Providing updates about COVID-19 (case spread, number of deaths, etc.)

Preventative

information

Information about masking, vaccines, social distancing, and other

preventative measures

Medical research

Research concerning COVID-19 conducted by scientists or medical

professionals

Social impacts

Impacts of COVID-19 as pertaining to daily life and society

Combating

misinformation

Addressing misinformation such as the ineffectiveness of vaccines and

providing accurate information

Politics

Mentions of political issues (controversies regarding COVID-19,

politicians weighing in)

Findings for RQ 1: How did Fox News and CNN frame COVID-19?

For Fox News, the political frame had the most appearances in the coded articles at 58,

and update information followed with 45. Social impact frames were found 40 times, and

prevention information frames were found 30 times. Medical research and combating

misinformation frames were found the least, with 12 and 6 appearances, respectively. There was

a noticeable lack of medical research and scientific information in the Fox articles. The social

impacts frame and political frame combination appeared much more frequently, with politicians

referencing social impacts of COVID-19 and preventative measures such as limiting gatherings

or wearing masks. The update information frame also appeared consistently, with information

about number of COVID-19-related cases or deaths. I noticed a trending shift of focus from

update, health, and preventative frames, which appeared in a higher concentration in articles

written during the first two months of lockdown (March and April), to political frames, which

appeared more frequently in articles written after these months.

The most common frame found in the CNN articles was prevention information, which

appeared 108 times. The second and third most common frames found were social impacts and

update information, found 87 and 80 times, respectively. Medical research frames followed with

76 appearances. Politics was the second least common frame, with 53 appearances, and the

combating information frame was found the least, with 42 frames. The majority of CNN

coverage focused on providing new updates on the pandemic (case numbers, testing

developments) as well as prevention and health recommendations for the public to protect

themselves and others from getting sick. Political and combating misinformation frames

appeared together in many articles, with politicians being criticized for spreading inaccurate

information and CNN providing accurate information through quotes from scientists. All frames

had consistent frequencies of appearances throughout the limited time period.

RQ1 Discussion and Comparison

The scientific uncertainty of COVID-19 impacted the way news outlets approached its

characterization, and Fox News and CNN framed COVID-19 in very different ways. Fox framed

COVID-19 as the subject of a political fight, shifting focus from the health implications of the

virus to the social and political issues of preventative measures like the discontinuation of large

gatherings or bodily autonomy in regards to mask wearing. Many articles cited inconsistency

from health officials and included comments from politicians criticizing them. One article

included comments from Sen. Rand Paul, who spoke out against continued COVID-19

lockdowns, saying, “The one thing that will get our economy growing again is reopening

American commerce” (Fox News, April 23, 2020). A main focus of Fox News’s coverage of

COVID-19 seemed to be highlighting controversy, as opposed to relaying health information. On

the opposite side, CNN characterized COVID-19 as health emergency. Almost every article

included information about the importance of prevention and health precautions, and the urgency

of the pandemic was stressed heavily. Medical research frames were used to provide evidence

for guidelines. CDC recommendations were also mentioned frequently and CNN did not publish

any quotes or information that contradicted the CDC. CNN also took a more proactive approach

to combating misinformation than did Fox. A CNN article from March 24, 2020, detailed the

dangers of using the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. The article pointed out

misinformation that was being spread about the drug, most notably former President Trump’s

comment: “We know if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody” (CNN, March

24, 2020). The article went on to explain the medical research behind hydroxychloroquine,

stressing that further research must be done to ensure safety. Fox News did not prioritize

combating misinformation and included little medical research in their presentation of COVID-

19. Fox News also had more appearances of political frames than CNN despite having a smaller

sample size. It was clear that Fox framed COVID-19 as a partisan political battle, and CNN

framed it as an urgent health issue.

Findings for RQ2: How did Fox News and CNN characterize Dr. Fauci?

On March 25, 2020, in the weeks following lockdown, Fox noted that Dr. Fauci was “the

face of the pandemic” and “the nation’s top expert on infectious diseases” (Fox News, March 25,

2020). Almost every article written after this date had a direct quote from Dr. Fauci, and a

number of these quotes were about Dr. Fauci’s praise for different politicians, especially former

President Trump. In these cases, Dr. Fauci is characterized as being reliable (longer, more

detailed quotes from Dr. Fauci, commenters agreeing with him). The much smaller number of

articles which characterized Dr. Fauci as reliable focused on informational quotes from Dr. Fauci

about only health-related information and excluded the political frame. Most of the articles

included comments from miscellaneous talk show hosts, politicians, and advocates who had no

expertise in the health sciences but whose comments undermined Dr. Fauci’s reliability. One

example is found in an article from July 31, 2020, where Rep. Jim Jordan argues with Dr. Fauci

about Dr. Fauci’s recommendations on limiting gatherings. After Dr. Fauci states that he

recommends avoiding crowds of any kind, Rep. Jordan responds, “Government's stopping

people from going to church, Dr. Fauci. Last week... five liberals on the Supreme Court said it

was OK for Nevada to limit church services... Is there a world where the Constitution says you

can favor one First Amendment liberty, protesting, over another, practicing your faith?” (Fox,

July 31, 2020). Many of the articles that characterized Dr. Fauci as unreliable were similar to the

example with Rep. Jordan, with Dr. Fauci cautioning about preventative measures and

commenters criticizing him and referencing social impacts of the measures.

CNN cited Dr. Fauci as “one of the most visible faces on the administration’s [COVID-19] task

force” in an article on March 19, 2020. CNN’s views of Dr. Fauci’s expertise is demonstrated by

his frequent, substantial appearances in CNN articles. CNN’s characterization of Dr. Fauci was

consistently positive, with many articles including comments and recommendations solely from

him. CNN utilized the weight-of-experts strategy (Dunwoody & Kohl, 2017) in communicating

the uncertainties of COVID-19 by presenting conflicting or changing information first and then

including comments from Dr. Fauci about his thoughts on the matter. When articles address

contentious matters, Dr. Fauci’s opinion is included, indicating his reliability as an expert source.

One example of this occurred in an article about restricting air travel in the US. The article noted

that the decision to suspend domestic air travel is under disagreement, but included a comment

from a White House official who said, “Dr. Fauci is still pushing for it, maybe he’s right” (CNN,

March 19, 2020). The article listed evidence in support of Dr. Fauci’s recommendation.

RQ2 Comparison and Discussion

Peters and Dunwoody (2016) noted that different strategies are adopted by media in order

to communicate scientific uncertainty. CNN and Fox News used two different strategies to frame

Dr. Fauci that resulted from the uncertainty of COVID-19. While both news outlets recognized

Dr. Fauci’s prominence as an expert, Fox News used Dr. Fauci as a scapegoat for uncertainty

regarding COVID-19, picking holes in his arguments and criticizing his recommendations. The

strategy utilized by Fox to portray that Dr. Fauci communicates uncertainty by undermining the

credibility of him as a scientist. CNN took an opposite approach and used the strategy known as

weight-of-experts, which highlights the reliability of experts and uses their comments to navigate

uncertainty. CNN portrayed Dr. Fauci as extremely reliable, consistently turning to his opinion

when things were uncertain and using his name to lend credibility to other people or ideas.

Conclusion

Media communicate scientific uncertainty in different ways. It is important to examine

the representation of science and science experts in mass media as it can influence thoughts and

opinions, especially during emergencies like the pandemic where proper health communication

is vital. Fox News framed COVID-19 as a political controversy, shifting focus from health and

prevention to disagreements between scientists and politicians. Instead of providing direct

prevention recommendations, Fox News highlighted frustration and conflict. Fox News

characterized Dr. Fauci as an unreliable expert by including comments and opinions that

contradicted his recommendations, as well as criticizing his motives. CNN took a different

approach, underscoring the urgency and importance of health and prevention of COVID-19 in

almost every article. CNN also characterized Dr. Fauci as a reliable source, using his name to

lend credibility to COVID-19 updates and guidelines and including many long, detailed

comments from him. These findings have implications for the future of science coverage. First is

the potential negative impact and risk of news outlets that express distrust and frustration

towards science and experts during times of uncertainty. Second is the possible consequences of

having such polar opposite representations of a universal health emergency. Partisanship was a

driving force behind the differences in Fox News and CNN coverage, and both these outlets have

very different audiences. Fox News viewership consists of older, conservative-leaning

individuals, while most CNN viewers tend to be younger and liberal (Pew Research Center,

2019). These audiences are siloed, and this could mean that different audiences receive

conflicting information in a time of crisis where misinformation could be deadly. Considering

the prevalence of mass media and the fact that these two outlets are leading in popularity in the

US, further research could examine how these conflicting representations influence public

attitudes and opinions.

References

Bolsen, T., Palm, R., & Kingsland, J. T. (2020). Framing the origins of COVID-19. Science

Communication, 42(5), 562–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020953603

Dunwoody, S., & Kohl, P. A. (2017). Using weight-of-experts messaging to communicate

accurately about contested science. Science Communication, 39(3), 338–357.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017707765

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. The Academy of

Management Review, 18(3), 397. https://doi.org/10.2307/258903

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Grasso, D. J., Briggs‐Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., Goldstein, B. L., & Ford, J. D. (2021).

Profiling covid‐related experiences in the United States with the epidemic‐pandemic

impacts inventory: Linkages to psychosocial functioning. Brain and Behavior, 11(8).

https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2197

Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science

communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 614–633.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122

Hart, P. S., Chinn, S., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and polarization in covid-19 news

coverage. Science Communication, 42(5), 679–697.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735

Irons, N. J., & Raftery, A. E. (2021). Estimating SARS-COV-2 infections from deaths,

confirmed cases, tests, and random surveys. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 118(31). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103272118

MD, M. N. (2020). How did we get here? A short history of Covid-19 and other coronavirus-

related epidemics. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158888276.61023550

Pan, P.-L., & Meng, J. (2016). Media frames across stages of health crisis: A crisis management

approach to news coverage of flu pandemic. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management, 24(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12105

Peters, H. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2016). Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to

this special issue. Public Understanding of Science, 25(8), 893–908.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516670765

Xu, Y., Yu, J., & Löffelholz, M. (2022). Portraying the pandemic: Analysis of textual-visual

frames in German news coverage of covid-19 on Twitter. Journalism Practice, 1–21.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2058063